Get PJ Media on your Apple

Zombie

Karl Marx Was a Tea Partier

May 28th, 2013 - 1:31 pm

The end result of this epochal demographic and economic shift is that for the first time in American history, the people who actually work for a living and contribute to the common good — the “proletariat” in Marx’s version, and the “taxpayers” in ours — no longer control the company. Vote-wise, the scales have tipped in favor on the non-contributors and the bureaucrats, and suddenly they are the ones making the decisions about what to do with our collective gigantic pile of money — while those who actually created the pile through their work and tax contributions have become powerless.

It is outrage over this very power shift that spawned the Tea Party, which is essentially a movement of taxpayers angry that they no longer get to determine how their taxes are spent. Historically speaking, the Tea Party movement can be accurately defined as a workers’ revolution.

Karl Marx, were he alive today, would approve.

At least he would if he was able to follow his own theories to their logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the arc of history has exposed an untenable logical paradox at the heart of Marxist theory: What if the “workers” — the actually productive people in society whom Marx assumed were motivated by resentment — instead were motivated by a desire for self-determination? What if the “parasitical class” was not merely (as Marx posited) the do-nothings at the top but the do-nothings at the top and the bottom?

Marxist ideologues will likely be affronted by my analysis, saying I have no right to twist Marx’s ideas to meet my modern notions. But in truth, re-interpreting Marx is not only commonplace but necessary, even to his followers, since the mid-19th century framework of his arguments was already outdated by the start of the 20th century, leading to any number of post-Marxist theorists and revolutionaries who have put their own spin and interpretation on his ideas. Without updating and re-interpretation, Marx would be irrelevant by now.

No one has a monopoly on Marxist theory. Not even Marxists.

The Tea Party is a workers’ revolution. Modern “progressivism” is a reactionary totalitarian movement. The sooner that honest Marxists grasp this, the sooner “the people” can achieve liberation.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
What a load of crap. Tea Partiers believe in the free market and individual responsibility. Marxists believe in a state run and regulated economy and collective responsibility. You couldn't get any more diametrically opposed.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sorry, Zombie, assuming this isn't satire I'm not buying the sophistry. Marxism at its core is a violent and oppressive philosophy, dedicated to the principle of 'the ends justify the means' and ultimately designed to replace one set of exploiters with another.

That has about as much in common with the Tea Party as accurate, objective journalism has with the New York Times.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, I'm afraid this makes about as much sense as Kathy Schaidle's article which tried to present Helen Gurley Brown as an example of a conservative. No matter how you try to "reinterpret" Marx, I don't think you can remove the oppression of non-politically-correct persons from his ideas and still call what is left Marxism. That oppression is key to his methods and goals.

From what I've read by and about Marx, he would consider the Tea Party to be a tool of capitalist fat cats, and he would condemn it. Yes, the Tea Party was a grass-roots movement for freedom, but like Solidarity in 1980's Poland, it does not fit into the means or the ends of Marxism. Marx encouraged ruthless, dictatorial methods to get to the supposed utopia of communism, and he did not want any end-result that would accommodate Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Let's not try to make any excuses for Marx. He doesn't deserve them.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (48)
All Comments   (48)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The three highly rated comments appear not to have read Marx, but only experienced the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist interpretation of how to use his theories. Similarly, they've listened too much to the left about what Marx actually wrote.

While I disagree that Marx would have supported the Tea Party (since they represent some form of the small shopkeeper that Marx also saw as oppressing workers), I think you've made a very insightful analysis.

I think Marx would have been equally offended by the USSR as he would be with our system. Large state bureaucracies are exactly the opposite of the "withering away of the state" that Marx saw as the goal.

Marx's greatest flaw was that he forgot that people are greedy and selfish. Systems that take that into account and allow those aspects to end up benefiting everyone (capitalism) work. Anyone who forgets human nature is doomed to live in a dysfunctional society.

People need to read more and have more open minds.
34 weeks ago
34 weeks ago Link To Comment
Zombie,

Interesting take. It reminds me of the saying how people will often become that which they fight against. History shows it again and again.

Have you ever read "Rerum Novarum"? It countered Marx at the time. It is a good read even if you are not Catholic.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Zombie, I am a big fan of your work but being a Mold Maker I am tired of hearing my betters tell me that manufacturing in America is no longer needed. All manufacturing jobs are not "Floor Workers" and I find myself at odds with the great Thomas Sowell on this issue. We gave, under Clinton, China our manufacturing against Nixon's warning from his book "the Real War." Clinton handed over Favored Nation Trading status and held nothing in reserve for leverage. A Nation who can not manufacturer the means with which to defend itself will not last long. Environmental and labor regulations have sent manufacturing off shore and we no longer produce Mold Makers, Die Makers, or tool makers and YES they are all different disciplines with little overlap other than the ability to precisely use manual machine tools. This will bite us in the butt eventually as Engineers do not make anything, they design things but we make the tooling that produces their designs and they know little of the process.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
A better analogy is the Tea Party as the early French Revolution, before things went nutso. I think things might end up similarly here. Success in America is getting more and more defined by how connected one is to government. A nobility is forming right before our eyes. The people who are being left out are the average Joes. Some time in the future more of us Third Estaters are going to begin to agitate that things are wrong; and when things don't change after an initial moment of hope that they will, these proles are going to get s*it-crazy mad.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
i'm a bit late to the party on this post but being a fan of zombie's work i will toss in my 2 centavos

i believe this piece an example of how to snag a few people who consistently vote lefty and possibly remove some from the ledger of tyranny if only for one election cycle

for those who may not know- zombie lurks around the bay area and if one doesnt not know what it is like there then you have no clue--

the normal arguments and methods of persuading people to the side of limited government and self reliance are virtually impossible here-- this is where i see the slant of zombie's piece-- by using the common lefty vernacular combined with the comparison of a lefty icon-- (zombie gets bonus points for exploiting the fact that most lefty's in california are really bluffing in their knowledge of marx and will sucker at the mention of "workers and factories" and stuff) the usual mindless dolts on parade here might, just might, get confused at the moment of truth and side with the tea partiers-- because they are already preconditioned to react to these pavlovian responses

tl;dr-- the normal rules of life dont apply in the bay area and a little trip outside the box has its merits
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
I anticipated a throng of well-meaning Tea Partiers howling at this analysis. As one myself I was inclined to think likewise, until I read the article. You're tricky, you are, and as usual correct in the context as you put it forth. Very useful too. I suggest anyone who might be engaged in a conversation with a staunch liberal who brings up 'fairness' to use this logic... and delight in the 'deer in the headlights' look on your antagonist.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
<>

No, it's not hard to argue with that.

If I buy or build or or invent a machine that makes workers 10x more productive, why should "the workers" (ie, the ones operating the machine) accrue all the benefits?

I take your point that politicians are parasites, but I take exception with any equivalence of them and Marx's "capitalist".
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
The website messed up my quotes. I was referring, specifically, to Zombie's statement:

"Even so, there is an attractive populist rationality to this aspect of Marxism that appeals to everyone’s sense of fairness — even to those who staunchly reject the rest of communist theory. Those who do the work should reap the benefits and control the system; hard to argue with that."
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Our modern day marxist progressives(democrats) do indeed look at the way the country is run by politicians as deciding how much the taxpayers get to keep. The tea partiers want and believe that the taxpayers should decide how much of "our money" the politicians can have to run our govt. it is not up to any moron president to decide who is rich enough or has made enough money or how much we set aside for our retirement or if we should reward criminals that enter our country illegally with taxpayer paid benefits.
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
Outrageous nonsense, zombie. To conflate anarcho-syndicalism with 'Tea Party' anything is to have a gross misunderstanding of what the Tea Party movement is/was. It is NOT an anarchist-anything, a Paul-bot anything or any sort of Occupy-anything. It might be up in that festering sewer of leftist politics you play in, but it sure as hell isn't, nationally. It's a goddamned obscenity on a par with the Folsom St. garbage for you to have even made the assertion. Muckraking? Hit-whoring?
47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It is outrage over this very power shift that spawned the Tea Party, which is essentially a movement of taxpayers angry that they no longer get to determine how their taxes are spent. Historically speaking, the Tea Party movement can be accurately defined as a workers’ revolution.

Karl Marx, were he alive today, would approve."

I'm sorry, Zombie, but I think you've really gone off the rails here. I don't know Marx in detail but if his thinking matched that of his followers Lenin and Stalin, the whole notion of unemployed workers wouldn't even come up. Certainly, under Stalin, there was no unemployment. Everyone had a job of some sort, except perhaps the very old, the very young and the very sick. Able-bodied men and women simply didn't sit idle. Work of some kind, however menial, would be found for you unless you were clearly incapable of working, such as an infant.

And unlike America, you didn't necessarily have a lot of choice in what work you would do or where you would do it. If you were needed deep in Siberia to work in a factory, you took that job or found yourself under deep suspicion of being a troublemaker, suspicion that would likely find you on your way to the Gulag sooner, rather than later. There was, of course, no shortage of work in the Gulag. In fact, its primary feature was that inmates were frequently worked to death. Only 1 in 7 of the people that were sent to the Gulag survived their terms.

47 weeks ago
47 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All